New York approves the first congestion toll in the US: $15 to enter Manhattan(english.elpais.com) |
New York approves the first congestion toll in the US: $15 to enter Manhattan(english.elpais.com) |
* just take it off completely, who’s checking?
* thick black plastic license plate cover. Everybody’s got them.
* front plate optional!
* buy one of those “digital” license plates and just set it to show the car logo instead of ID. Teslas do it!
I’m just kidding by the way, California really needs to fix this problem too. The punishment for fake plates needs to be having the plate number ground on to your roof or something else permanent and embarrassing. Maybe welding a transponder to your engine block.
Not that anyone was enforcing traffic or parking violations in the city anyway. They have a citizen reporting system, and many violations get marked "Completed" within minutes, despite nothing ever being done about it.
A bit over a decade ago, I counted two to four such mandatory checkpoints on my commute depending on the route I took. So, somewhere in a government database, they have a log of when I went to and returned from work that year.
I’ve heard such databases go back decades and are widely used to blackmail politicians in the DC area. (Source, a rando that had had a few drinks claimed to work for the state dept. Even if they were full of it, the capability exists.)
https://gizmodo.com/rekor-ai-system-analyzes-driving-pattern...
NYC is out of control with taxes and regulations, but...
When I lived downtown, each morning, the glass of water on my nightstand would have a little oil slick of sorts atop it. When everything was shut down at the start of the pandemic, the constant stream of vehicles stopped. My water was then clean in the morning and the sticky feeling I'd get on my hands after a walk through the neighborhood stopped too.
I think some people are totally nuts for how much they hate cars. It's as if they don't understand life beyond the island. But it would be nice to reduce pollution there.
I doubt they will remove the tax if the day comes where all cars are electric.
Manhattan tbh does not need passenger cars at the scale it has. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to say, if you wanna come here leave your car outside of the city?
All taxes are permanent.
Otherwise, they can just use the toll money to divert general funds away from transit to other stuff.
I'm assuming this is going to be the same thing unless it's earmarked for public transportation by law instead of going into a general fund. Just like gas tax and car tabs in other states that goes to "fixing the roads by people that use it the most".
Or maybe first come first serve system. If too many vehicles are inside border new ones have to wait until one leaves?
I did not know any people in NYC go to Manhattan using personal cars more than 5 times a year. Almost all people driving there have to drive there for the business reasons. And if they have to pay the tax it is just falls on all the people using the city's services, regardless if you drive or not. Also because of this, it will not improve the air quality because they still have to drive, and to send vital goods, providing service to the people never drives in the city. So the net effect is using tax payer's money to fund disastrous city fiscal condition which the result of corruption. BTW, we all know wandering Uber/Lyft cars are the most polluting factor these years, but the city does not want to do anything about it.
Shouldn’t they charge progressive less the higher the occupancy is of the vehicle.
This pricing seems backwards to me.
If the issue is primarily the presence of the vehicles themselves, it makes sense that larger vehicles take more space and cause more congestion.
If “congestion” also factors in pedestrians, then those larger vehicles are increasing congestion at a higher rate than smaller vehicles, both in terms of space taken by the vehicle, and number of humans entering the area.
I get what you’re saying, but I think there are a number of ways to make it make sense depending on what behavior they’re trying to alter.
If they were to charge less for larger vehicles, people would buy larger vehicles just for carting themselves around regardless of number of passengers, which would increase overall congestion.
Driving comes with negative effects on others and capitalism only works when those externalities are paid by those creating them.
Talking about Manhattan specifically, this is already about the most expensive place in the world and the only place in the US with this scheme in place, adding more traffic isn’t going to change that so no point in using it as an example of anything.
Plenty of countries that are not so car dependent have pedestrian zones in less affluent cities.
Minimum emissions standards
Petrol: Euro 4 (NOx)
Diesel: Euro 6 (NOx and PM)
Petrol cars that meet the ULEZ standards are generally those first registered as new with the DVLA after 2005, although cars that meet the standards have been available since 2001
Diesel cars that meet the standards are generally those first registered with the DVLA as new after September 2015
Related (now archived) discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37475743
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/29/nyregion/tolls-congestion...
The drop in traffic that experts are expecting already happened during the Bloomberg administration, when they made most areas in Lower and Midtown Manhattan "no parking" zones, and jacked up the taxes on parking garages.
No one drives into Manhattan unless they have to, and congestion pricing won't change the situation for those people who don't have a choice.
Only 22% of Manhattan’s households own cars. Maybe the people who live on the island should be prioritized over visitors.
It's not privatisation that created laws forcing a minimum number of parking spaces. You can bet if there were no zoning laws or mandatory parking space requirements US cities would be a lot more walkable, like Asian cities.
If I don't go to National Parks why should my taxes pay for them? Make the visitors pay to enter.
Seems to be where we are these days.
There are 2 kinds of people in the world, those who understand incentives and those who don't.
There is plenty in the budget for public services, we don't use it for that though which is why we add new fines.
If it was about actual congestion then the fee would be proportional to one's affluence, otherwise the rich will just come in as if nothing was imposed.
Then if you say this has nothing to do with the poverty, then in that case, how is it going to reduce the congestion?
or we can run a daily lottery and create a port of call just outside NYC for people to wait until they win the daily lottery. and administer the daily lottery. and somehow communicate daily to the winners. and really set a hard cap on entrants.
"just" does seem to apply to one of those options to me, but not the second
OCR at borders would be easy to implement. Just have a gate and diversion lines back to where car entering came from. And simple online sing-up system and rng run every night is extremely simple software project.
Or if car without daily lottery tickets enters without permission, just make it so that it is permanently forfeit and destroyed. Thus removing it's future emissions.
Isn't the goal here to have less cars in the zone? Thus goal is preventing them from entering. And giving everyone equal chance to win right of entry is fairest model.
There is no sane reason to deliberately devalue an urban core like this. They already face property tax collapse due to an occupancy crisis. It'll be like Gary, Indiana (just east of me) before you know it.
If they want to encourage use of mass transit, they should to address that issue directly, rather than this self-sabotage.
Without the tax income from all those offices, and the surrounding shops, etc., NYC is unsustainable. It's been that way for a while, reality is catching up.
Given that vehicle traffic is non-uniform throughout the day, maybe it would make sense to have separate prices per hour, but there reaches a point where the marginal increase in complexity does not drive marginal improvements in allocation.
There are many variations: you can do dynamic spot pricing (which is determined in real time, like Uber/Lyft surges), or reserved pricing (which is dynamic but can be locked in ahead of time, like the wholesale day-ahead electricity market which is priced by the hour or hotels/airplane tickets). Or some combination of the above.
You can do this through a phone app.
Another way to do it would be to look at historical data and predict demand in advance. You could then do custom prices by day, but scheduled a month in advance or more. You could also split the day into two or three periods with different pricing.
Only about 30% of NYCers even own cars.
2. This only impacts a small part of Manhattan and for certain hours in the day. The only thing it does is encourages those who can move their travel away from peak hours to do so. This will greatly help all the people driving in as well.
3. This will greatly save many lives through reduced pollution and reduced car crashes.
4. This will help bus services etc which service far more working class people from the outer boros than private cars.
5. Congestion pricing has worked very well and been expanded everywhere it’s tried. There’s no evidence of it hurting working class people anywhere. And the parts of Manhattan this affects might be the most densely populated in terms of public transport.
2. This is no longer true, the plan is tolling individuals driving into that area 24 hours a day, and from 5AM-9PM at the full rate.
5. Just because Manhattan has public transit doesn’t mean they’re coming from a neighborhood with accessible public transit. Converting a short drive into a 2 hour each way trip is wrong no matter how poor the person.
I read this as "96% of drivers will be fine." Do you have other information to add here? Would be interested if so.
They should jack the price to >$50. Anyone paying $8000/no for a 1bd in Manhattan can afford an extra 50*30=$1500 for the privilege of congesting everyone else's roads.
But my mind went to one demographic in particular -- Halal food carts. Those folks usually live in Queens and they have to haul their carts into Manhattan (unless I'm wrong about that).
1) Regulate urban business density in coastal cities and cities more generally limited by water.
2) More multi-core metropolises where the highest <edit: business> density is either spread out entirely, or spread to multiple districts sufficiently far away from each other.
Edit: The comment by hamandcheese showed I had forgotten this important modifier for point 2.
It is privatization that renders the government only capable of punitive solutions (regressive fees, etc.) rather than constructive ones (public infrastructure upgrades, etc.). Realize the revenue from these fees will be 99% laundered and swallowed up by private contractors. That ink is already dry.
>You can bet if there were no zoning laws or mandatory parking space requirements
Nonsense. This is the demented obsession I described above. You aren't making any sense at all. Working people aren't lobbying for parking space requirements; petty business owners are.
Out of all of parking in Lower Manhattan maybe 5% is free. And it's still very difficult to get that parking.
The entire length of Manhattan from below 14th street/above Houston on every single street has free street parking as long as you can comply with the 1.5 hours twice a week that you can not park there. It’s a few choice streets and aves that are the exception to this.
Business owners and employees park in those spots daily because street cleaning hours take place typically before 11AM, so they just drive in and hang out for 10 mins before getting free parking all day.
Ya buddy, go run the numbers on a wash and fold service or any small business with 6-7% cash on cash returns and lmk how much is left at the end of the month to pay $450 for congestion fees.
Instead of charging me $15 more to visit, go have Adams ask Hotchul for money if you want to reach further into my pocket.
But you can't, because NYC can't elect competent representatives. De Blasio, really? Adams' recent scandal? Just have someone who can negotiate with their own goddamn party.
So instead you bastards rob me.
You cannot possibly have this opinion if you have.
In the context of Greater London this is absurd.
The public very much enjoys the convenience and speed of well funded public transit. Even if they don’t always enjoy the actual process if it isn’t well kept and clean.
The system they are describing is better.
Edit: Apparently the highway patrol is notified of carpools they should watch in passing.
You said that will adversely affect the poor but that's not true, what poor person is spending $100 a day on parking? Poor people use trains like nearly everyone else does. The extra $15 will discourage people from making unnecessary trips into the city thus reducing traffic/congestion and improving quality of life for people who live in the city.
For instance if someone live in Brooklyn and needs to make a trip to lower Manhattan they'll be more likely to use public transportation.
> The extra $15 will discourage people from making unnecessary trips into the city thus reducing traffic/congestion and improving quality of life for people who live in the city.
How is that going to do that? If someone is affluent, I don't think they are going to think twice about spending $15 extra. It will discourage people who cannot afford it.
> For instance if someone live in Brooklyn and needs to make a trip to lower Manhattan they'll be more likely to use public transportation.
Yes, people who can't afford spending $15. Anyone else will continue as they do, as private transport is safer, quicker and more convenient - plus there will be better traffic, as the poor will be taken off the road.
This isn't true most of the time is quicker to take public transportation due to the congestion issues. Cars don't scale.
> How is that going to do that? If someone is affluent, I don't think they are going to think twice about spending $15 extra. It will discourage people who cannot afford it.
Yes the point is to discourage people from driving into Lower Manhattan. Lower Manhattan is easily accessible by public transportation.
> Poverty is relative. Someone may be compensated well enough to afford rent, parking and all that, but after paying everything they have little money left for themselves. That $15 may eat into this meaning you may reconsider whatever arrangement you have - effectively pricing you out.
The poverty rate for NYC is $35,000 if someone can afford to pay $24,000 yearly in parking I doubt they're in poverty, especially when public transportation is available and is quicker due to the high congestion. This wouldn't be implemented if there wasn't an alternative.
Punitive measures in the absence of constructive measures will absolutely fail. This isn't complicated.
A) can't afford $15
B) have a car
C) need the car in Manhattan
D) can afford to wait N days to enter Manhattan
I grew up poor -- thank you FAANG, am not anymore -- but sometimes I still feel the same icky anger I used to feel when people would make abstract arguments that presumed being poor is pure destitution, just to keep things interesting for some argument.
Double checking myself, the person we're looking for:
- [works at / owns] a low margin business in downtown manhattan
- has a car
- needs their car in Manhattan
- has to take their car out of Manhattan at some point
- can afford to wait N days to enter Manhattan
Looking at that...yeah I do still think that's a null set.
If you're gesturing at the more general "it sucks people gotta pay $450/month", yeah, I can imagine this being a substantial addition to a pizza place's budget if they were relying on workers driving their own cars in from Queens.
If this isn't true then why the need for the charge then?
> Yes the point is to discourage people from driving into Lower Manhattan. Lower Manhattan is easily accessible by public transportation.
Only those who can't afford extra $15.
> The poverty rate for NYC is $35,000 if someone can afford to pay $24,000 yearly in parking I doubt they're in poverty
You are missing the point. Something like this is called wage slavery and many people are affected by it. They earn relatively a lot of money, but after spending on the necessities they have very little money on themselves. Someone can have a job that requires them to travel through the centre or actually park there and despite the high cost they can't afford to quit it because it is better to have some money than nothing. On paper they are doing well, but in reality they are miserable with no way out.
Take San Francisco, for example. We have transit. But riding at peak hours sucks and will always suck because everyone is going to the same place.
Concentration of offices downtown makes transit to anywhere else less viable - hence the only subway in SF goes to one place.
Regardless, manicured lawns are an environmentally bad thing on their own.
When you mentioned urban sprawl I first thought of expansion of the urban heat-island effect.